oi keep the anti-semitism at a low. and wtf is all this crap about dawkins? the guy seems like a pretty cool dude and if you were to look at other "idols" in society (mainly the music/movie stars) I think people could do a lot worse.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.

Welcome chippy. I agree with the others. Dawkins never said it was original. I don't idolize him; he is an average debater,a great author,sometimes a dick. I think he does great work for the secular movement, and i always have a laugh when i see dawkins-comfort related

To preempt the idea that Dawkins arrived at the very same idea independently I respond:
--that is not how academic culture works, all intellectually rigorous work commences with the application of due diligence in the form of a literature review to determine all of the relevant anecedent work;
--if on the highly improbable chance that Dawkins formulated the complexity argument on his own then he will have demonstrated a failure of due diligence;
--it is highly improbable that Dawkins independently arrived at his core argument indepdendently because such an occurrence in intrinsically improbable, it rarely has happened in intellectual history and a fortiori the wording is too similar. Compare:

Quote:The whole argument turns on the familiar question 'Who made God?', which most
thinking people discover for themselves. A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. (Dawkins 2006; p.109)
...
The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
(ibid. p.158)

Quote:My answer to this is as follows. If we postulate God in addition to the created universe we increase the complexity of our hypothesis. We have all the complexity of the universe itself, and we have in addition the at least equal complexity of God. (The designer of an artefact must be at least as complex as the designed artefact). (Smart 1985; pp.275-276)

Quote:Not everyone is an intellectual snob.

You are a tool. You call yourself a "badass messiah" and a "know-it-all"; of course for irony "badass messiah" is inverted (and that also shows that you have 1337 BB Code skillz) and "know-it-all" is prefixed with "insufferable"--for irony of course. You're just so clever and ironic I'm beside myself.

It's not really irony though is it, you really are just a great big wanking tool. The "irony" is there to try and innoculate yourself from being called a tool because you are self-aggrandising. The "irony" is really just shtick: "I am so fucking clever! Oh relax silly I'm just being ironic."

The real irony is that you are suggesting I'm "an intellectual snob" whilst your're jerking off in public to your claimed superior intellect and knowledge. The further layer of irony is that you are declaring your superior intellect and knowledge when those traits--if real--will demonstrate themselves in your discourse--no further effort being required. That they need to be announced is an implicit concession on your part that they aren't evident in your posts. "I'm being ironic!", I can hear you cry. No you aren't. You are being a tool.

And the avatar, is that someone windsurfing? That would be you of course becaue although you boast a great intellect and a vast storehouse of knowledge--and we know that because you tell us that in every garish post-- you're cool.

Your user profile is so camp it borders on self-parody. If I set out to construct an online persona of a tool I would use your profile as an exemplar. You check all the boxes, even the animated gif. If there were any more customisable elements you would fill those with more camp content that is completely devoid of irony wouldn't you?

Look closely at what you wrote here:

Quote:If it even approaches the "undergraduate" level, then it's already over the heads of most of his audience.
Not everyone is an intellectual snob.

This betrays your antiintellectualism and is a de facto promotion of ignorance as a virtue. In an attempt to insult me you've equated a solid liberal education with "intellectual snob[bery]". You could have said, "Not everyone has an education in basic science and humanities" and that would have communicated a legitimate (though irrelevant) point. But instead you have implied that anyone that is well-educated and that consequently doesn't learn anything from Dawkins' books is an "intellectual snob". Rather than admit that I have made a legitimate point --that no one that has completed a bachelor's degree with a minor in biology and a major in philosophy will learn anything from Dawkins' books--you opted to derogate education for the sake of a damp squib.

You also uphold a double-standard. You are prepared to pour scorn and vitriol on theists with regard to poor argumentation and ignorance but when I scrutinise the posts of (village) atheists here that makes me an arrogrant and presumptuous asshole. This shows your stamp. You have no serious commitment to factuality and intellectual integrity; your commitment is instead to your own self-aggrandisement and the cheap ridicule of theists. I re-iterate, you are a tool.

Are you offering yourself as an exemplar (other than as a tool)? The thrust of your intent appears to be to offer yourself as someone I should seek to emulate and to chastise me for not being like you. I should have learnt something from The God Delusionbecause you did--that seems to be what you telling me. I should beat over the head theists with crappy arguments and factual errors and ignore the same from atheists beacuse you do. Well, pardon me all over the place for not being an intellectual coward, having principles and having an education.

(02-10-2013 10:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: He told me/insisted I was making an argument regarding "Abrahamic" religions I was was not making. In order to *be* an "Abrahamic" religion, it has to embrace Abraham's deity. It's childsplay to demonstrate the origins of the deity in Islam was not, and could not, be Yahweh.

Abraham isn't a deity he's supposed to be an ancient Israelite patriarch.

This is an idiotic and ultimately pointless line of argumentation that you are pursuing and you appear completely convinced of its profundity and merit.

Quote:It's childsplay to demonstrate the origins of the deity in Islam was not, and could not, be Yahweh.

If you don't believe in the reality of Yahweh and the historicity of the Torah then this can be nothing more than a language game, it is akin to arguing about things in the Marvel Universe. The contention that Allah is not Yahweh is utterly meaningless--outside the language game of Judaic and Islamic theology--and utterly irrelevant to atheism. It really is like debating whether some new Marvel character-- Projectile Diarrhoea-Man--does or doesn't belong in the Marvel Universe.

And if Islam is not "Abrahamic" what then? What have you won? What does that matter within the broader issues of metaphysical naturalism vs. metaphysical supernaturalism, of atheism vs. theism? Nothing! The intention is doubly misguided: confusing a language game with a substantive issue and engaging a language game on an irrelevant matter.

What are you talking about? Jewishness is both an ethnic identity and a religious identity. No one is criticising Jews as an ethnicity, that is antisemitism. Criticising Judaism is entirely legitimate, it doesn't get a free pass. It is the Torah that requires that homosexuals be murdered and Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah is the revealed word of Yahweh. So your typical Orthodox Jew that is waiting for the moshiach is waiting for him to arrive to create some homo-free kosher Jewish kingdom where Jews will "will drink the milk of nations and be nursed at royal breasts."[1]. (A New York without homosexuals all over the world?) That's a great vision for the future isn't it? Yeah we'll just ignore all of the ugliness of the Torah and just refer to it as the Old Testament as if the first five books of the Old Testament were a Christian invention. We'll heap on Islam about it being misogynist and ignore that Orthodox Judaism is equally misogynous. We'll laugh at Biblical Literalist Christians that believe in Noah's flood and the ark but we'll ignore that Orthodox Jews believe the very same thing. Great stuff, that sounds fair.

Quote:and wtf is all this crap about dawkins? the guy seems like a pretty cool dude and if you were to look at other "idols" in society (mainly the music/movie stars) I think people could do a lot worse.

That's setting the bar quite low but if that's what you are about then fine. In your CV do you list under Positive Attributes "Don't roofie woman at bars" because you could be doing a lot worse than just roofie women at bars.

This is an idiotic and ultimately pointless line of argumentation that you are pursuing and you appear completely convinced of its profundity and merit.

I could care less what your pompous-ass opinion is of anything.
I never said "Abraham was a deity". Apparently you have difficulty reading the English language. I said an "Abrahamic religion" would need Abraham's deity (Yahweh) to be an "Abrahamic religion". Abraham was not Abraham's deity. That really is not THAT difficult. Apparently it is for you. You obviously missed the entire point.

(02-10-2013 11:37 PM)Chippy Wrote: If you don't believe in the reality of Yahweh and the historicity of the Torah then this can be nothing more than a language game.

Let me spell it out for you, dear, since you obviously have no clue.
The word "oblivious" comes to mind.

I said ISLAM WAS NOT AN ABRAHAMIC RELIGION. You said it was. Remeber that ? It was a LONG time ago, but do try.
If Islam's claims that their deity (named Allah) is the same god as Yahweh, (that dear, is what they mean when they say they are "Abrahamic religions" ... they SHARE a deity), can be easily demonstrated as false, (which they can), and Islam demonstrated to NOT be an "Abrahamic religion" (as Robert Spencer and "The Satanic Verses" show ... along with mountains of historical evidence, which you, Mr. Intellectual Snob, obviously never even heard about), then that is important. Al-Ilah was the crescent phase of the moon-god, whose name was "Sin". The Hebrews were repeatedly told to stop worshiping this deity. They were NOT the same deity. They were originally sons of the Babylonian god. The god Sin had 3 divine daughters. Originally in the Quran. Allah had the same 3 divine daughters, which was subsequently rejected as a mistake by Muhammad, and termed "the Satanic Verses", (he said "the devil made me say that"). Scholars of religion, (which you obviously are not), know they were not the same deity. Sin is NOT Yahweh. Even someone as dense as you should be able to see where this is going. Islam is NOT an "Abrahamic religion" because they did not share the same deity. You stated a falsehood, when you said there were three "Abrahamic religions". It's a common mistake, by people with no education in Comparative Religion.

It may not be important to you, but if I were to go to certain places, I would be jailed, and probably killed for saying this. Bart Ehrman said he won't discuss the origins of Islam, as he values his life. Apparently you are too dense to put two and two together. You're too busy shitting on authors you need to feel superior to.

This may come as shock to you, but "metaphysical naturalism vs. metaphysical supernaturalism, of atheism vs. theism" are YOUR interests.
You don't get to impose your snobbish interests on anyone.
If 1/4 of the human population buys into the crap of Islam, it just might be a tiny bit important.

(Oh, and fuck you too. )
You shouldn't get your undies in such a bunch. It's not good for your blood pressure.

(03-10-2013 12:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I could care less what your pompous-ass opinion is of anything.

Then why do you reply and moreover why do you reply like you've been butt-hurt.

Quote:I never said "Abraham was a deity". Apparently you have difficulty reading the English language. I said an "Abrahamic religion" would need Abraham's deity (Yahweh) to be an "Abrahamic religion". Abraham was not Abraham's deity. That really is not THAT difficult. Apparently it is for you. You obviously missed the entire point.

Settle down spaz. The phrase "Abraham's deity" is ambiguous it can mean either "the god of Abraham" or "the divinity of Abraham". The word "deity" can simply mean god or it can refer to divine status.

Quote:Let me spell it out for you, dear, since you obviously have no clue.
The word "oblivious" comes to mind.

ARTHUR: Look Jane he is using irony again. He used the word "dear" but he really means the opposite of its literal meaning. That's irony Jan. Irony.
JAN: What's that Arthur? Irony you say?
ARTHUR: Irony. I-R-O-N-Y.

Quote:I said ISLAM WAS NOT AN ABRAHAMIC RELIGION. You said it was. Remeber that ? It was a LONG time ago, but do try.

ARTHUR: There he goes again, its irony again Jan. Irony!
JAN: He means it was recently but he wrote long and in capitals! Very ironic!
ARTHUR: Irony! It's amazing. Such skillful use of irony.

Quote:If Islam's claims that their deity (named Allah) is the same god as Yahweh, (that dear, is what they mean when they say they are "Abrahamic religions" ... they SHARE a deity), can be easily demonstrated as false, (which they can), and Islam demonstrated to NOT be an "Abrahamic religion"

ARTHUR: Jan! More irony. Come take a look. He said "dear" when he meant the opposite of its literal meaning--again!
JAN: Irony!
ARTHUR: Is there a point at which the misuse or poor execution of irony itself bceomes unintentionally ironic?
JAN: Yes I think so.

I wrote an essay on life for the Allied soldiers in WWII German POW camps. I used Hogan's Heroes as a source. My essay killed. Hogan's Heroes provided me mountains of evidence for my central thesis that you could distract and persuade fat German guards with apple strudel.

Quote:then that is important. Al-Ilah was the crescent phase of the moon-god, whose name was "Sin".

Fuck. Go on.

Quote:The Hebrews were repeatedly told to stop worshiping this deity. They were NOT the same deity.

They are not the same nonexistent deity.

Quote:They were originally sons of the Babylonian god. The god Sin had 3 divine daughters. Originally in the Quran. Allah had the same 3 divine daughters, which was subsequently rejected as a mistake by Muhammad, and termed "the Satanic Verses", (he said "the devil made me say that").

Ho-hum.

Quote:Scholars of religion, (which you obviously are not), know they were not the same deity. Sin is NOT Yahweh.

Sin is not Yahweh. Sin is nothing. Yahweh is nothing. Those are just signfiers without any referents if you are a nonbeliever. Your discourse become meaningful only if one decides to engage in that particular language game. Outside of that language game the distinctions you are making are meaningless. If I was a Muslim yes this would be important and meaningful to me, I'm not so it is just nonsense. You may as well be arguing about how Spiderman's powers work and comic book enthusiasts do argue about things like that within the Marvel (and other) Universe. Their discussion is meaningful and coherent within their language game but outside of it is meaningless. Whether Muslims are worshipping Yahweh or X is analogous. Can Spiderman keep on shooting webs or does he run out and have to wait for that ability to replenish? Your contention and that question have the same epistemic status.

Quote:Even someone as dense as you should be able to see where this is going. Islam is NOT an "Abrahamic religion" because they did not share the same deity.

Muslims are worshipping whatever they say they are worshipping. There is no empirical test to determine whether they are worshipping Yahweh or Sin just as there is no empirical test to determine the "duty cycle" of Spiderman's web spinners. If Stan Lee says they can spin for 60 minutes before requiring rest then that is the case. Both the Marvel Universe and the Islamic worldview are self-contained universes of discourse that exist purely by virtue of human linguistic ability. Hence Marvel Universe talk and Middle-Eastern deity talk are language games. Robert Spencer is a Christian so he plays the language game with good reason. The identity of his god versus Musilms' god is a serious and significant question. For an nonbelieber it has no meaning and hence no significance so your fascination with this topic is entirely bizarre. If you can accept that Yahweh and Sin are two signs that point to nothing in the universe then my meaning and intent should become plain. To Spencer "Yahweh" points to a God and as a Christian it is important to him to demonstrate that Yahweh can only be properly worshipped via Christianity and that Islam is not a form of Yahweh worship. But exiting Spencer's universe of discourse, his language game--which I concede is legitimate for any devout Christian--what can "Yahweh" or "Sin" mean to you, a nonbeliever? They really don't mean anything to you or to any atheist. They become meaningful only in the same way that science fiction becomes meaningful when we accept the authors invitation to suspend our disbelief and engage with the authors semiotic construction, when we accept the rules of the authors language game and play along. The question is why are you playing along in a language game pertaining to the deity of Islam?

Quote:You stated a falsehood, when you said there were three "Abrahamic religions". It's a common mistake, by people with no education in Comparative Religion.

No, I stated a convention that is consistent with language game of Muslims. The "real" identity of the Islamic God is not an issue of objective truth or falshood. I can say something false about Spiderman but falsities about Spiderman are not the same as falsities of objective reality.

But aside from your hypnotisation by language the issue of the identity of the Islamic god--within that language game--is not as clearcut as you pretend. The account of the origin of Islam that you are reciting is one of a plurality.

You are also commiting a form of the genetic fallacy. Even if the account of the origin of Islam that you are reciting were true--and the evidence is not clear that it is--it has no bearing on the intentionality of Muslims. If a Muslim says he is worshipping the same God as Abraham then he is worshipping the same God as Abraham--his intentionality is sufficient to render that true. What you are in effect arguing is that when a person says "bless you" in response to someone sneezing they believe that the person may soon die because that was the original meaning of the custom. If a person says they say "bless you" simply because its a custom and it means nothing then we can take them at their word, their intention is sufficient to dissociate the custom from whatever it originally meant. Similarly, if early Muslims were indeed worshipping Sin then that has no bearing on what current Muslims are doing, their intentionality is sufficient to make them worshippers of Abraham's God.

So your position has no appreciable merit.

Quote:It may not be important to you, but if I were to go to certain places, I would be jailed, and probably killed for saying this. Bart Ehrman said he won't discuss the origins of Islam, as he values his life. Apparently you are too dense to put two and two together. You're too busy shitting on authors you need to feel superior to.

So what? It is important to Muslims because they believe in a god, the importance of the issue to Muslims was never in question. The issue here is why this theological issue is important to a an atheist.

Quote:This may come as shock to you, but "metaphysical naturalism vs. metaphysical supernaturalism, of atheism vs. theism" are YOUR interests.
You don't get to impose your snobbish interests on anyone.

It seems an imposition to you because you are unable to defend yourself. Your recitals aren't privieged and immune from criticism. The "real" identity of the God of Islam has no bearing on atheology. None. And since this is a forum that is notionally dedicated to atheology that is a pertient point.

Quote:If 1/4 of the human population buys into the crap of Islam, it just might be a tiny bit important.

And how does telling a Muslim that their God is not the god of Abraham help?

Are you only concerned about the "pagan" influences on Islam?

What about the remnants of "paganism" in Orthodox Judaism? Contrast this and this with this.

It seems to me that this is about "Muslim baiting"; you want to artificially engage their language game just for the sake of insulting them. Will you do the same to Orthodox Jews also; tell them that they are corrupted by pagan animal sacrifice?

Quote:(Oh, and fuck you too. )
You shouldn't get your undies in such a bunch. It's not good for your blood pressure.

A more general message. To all of you cuntarses that are making yourselves feel important by trying to insult me in your negative rep comment: eat shit and die. Also for you commenting monkeys ad hominem is a contraction of argumentum ad hominem and it doesn't mean to merely insult someone. The commission of argumentum ad hominem requires that a reference be made to some aspect of the interlocutor that is perceived to be a deficiency and that reference must function as a premise in a (fallacious) argument. Calling someone a "dickhead" is just an insult not an ad hominem you ignorant and pretentious cunts. These are example of an argumentum ad hominem:

P1. Charlie is stupid.
P2. Stupid people have nothing important to say on euthanasia
C. Charlie has nothing important to say about euthanasia.

P1 Charlie is a Christian
P2 Christians can't argue a point
C Charlie can't argue a point

These are fallacious arguments because they have premises that pertain to irrelevant personal details about Charlie which may or not be true. The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem doesn't require an insult but it can involve an insult. The commission of the fallacy need only reference the interlocutor personally as if that personal detail constrituted a deficiency in the arguers mind, e.g. Charlie being a priest.

Who is calling who pretentious? You came here to stir shit up, which in and of itself is a mildly amusing sidetrack from the normal humdrum, but I see no reason to be such an aggressive cunt about it. Don't like Dawkins? Fine. I'm not that keen on him either. Don't agree with anyone? Fine. But by coming on here and over analyzing everything about a particular person in order to attempt to belittle or degrade someone is just a cunt move that has absolutely nothing to do with any argument that you have postulated. I honestly pity you. You enjoy attempting to cyberbully strangers, something tells me you wouldn't be nearly as adversarial in person.

Alright, I chimed in. Go ahead, let's hear how ironic, hip and condescending my profile makes me. Please take note of my contact info too. I'm sure you will cum all over the place on that one.